Talk:Attack bonus
Attack bonus vs. attack roll Can this article be redirect to Attack roll as I think its the same. -- Pstarky Hmm, I think they're separate but related. The Attack Bonus is the base number only while the Attack Roll is the AB + modifiers + d20. Let me consult the SRD to see how they spell it out. -- Austicke 02:51, 12 Jun 2005 (PDT) *Yeah, take a look at [http://www.wizards.com/d20/files/v35/CombatI.rtf Combat I (Basics) (RTF document)]. (The SRD includes a lot of good info we might want to incorporate here.) -- Austicke 03:02, 12 Jun 2005 (PDT) Ok thank you. By the looks the SRD going to fill in some missing pieces. -- Pstarky 03:53, 12 Jun 2005 (PDT) Attack or enhancement bonus I thought I was getting the handle on attack vs enhancement bonus. Attack is added to the "To Hit" while Enhancement is added to the "Damage" as well as the "To Hit". Felt pretty good about this, then I read this page. Attack Bonus is broken down here as Base attack bonus + Strength modifier + weapon attack OR enhancement bonus + feat modifiers + size modifiers. Now I get lost. Why the OR? For that matter is enhancement bonus truly a part of attack bonus? If so shouldn't it read "Weapon Attack and/or Enhancement bonus"? If it is just one or the other, which is top dog? Does Weapon attack override Enhancement? Grom56 01:35, 13 June 2009 (UTC) * It is "or" because attack and enhancement bonuses do not stack; the higher is used. --The Krit 00:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC) *actually just read this and had to add something both attack bounes and enchant are used presuming there is both for example if you had 16 ab and 12 enchant because the AB is higher you will receive 16 AB but you also have 12 enchant which means although it will not stack to AB the damage you do will increase by 12 in the weapon you are using so haveing enchant is better as it will increase both damage and AB but if you can get 16 ab but only 5 enchant try and get both to get the high AB and that extra 5 damage on the side hope this helps guys (the damage is an extra amount in the weapon its on like pierce for a rapier) --sincerly whitee70 What bonus applies if Say you have a sword with +7 AB and +4 AB vs. Outsiders. Will it use the +4 or the +7 when hitting an Outsider? I wanted to create a weapon that is less effective against some things but not others. Would this work or do I need to make an entry for each and every AB for each and every Race? <8/ ---TormentedOne 16:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC) * The highest attack bonus is supposed to apply. I've heard that that is indeed the case, but have not tested it personally. --The Krit 16:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC) Circumstantial modifiers I'm not sure where to add this to the article (or if it directly is needed there) so I am listing circumstantial modifiers to the attack roll besides the feats. * Target Stunned +2AB * Target Hidden -4AB * Target Prone +/-4AB (melee/ranged) * Attacker Invisible +2AB (does not apply if the attacker (bug?) can see through his own invisibility) * Flanking +2AB WhiZard 14:39, April 3, 2010 (UTC) * I realized there were a bunch of missing modifiers when I revised the article recently, but did not have the time to work them in. However, I didn't even think of situational modifiers -- I was thinking more along the lines of missing feats (e.g. expertise, nature sense) and there being no acknowledgment of spells affecting AB. Thanks for the list; I'll find a way to work them in. Might be a few days before I get back to this, though. Kind of a big weekend. --The Krit 15:16, April 3, 2010 (UTC) * These are in the article. Anything else missing? --The Krit 01:11, April 7, 2010 (UTC) :* No, good job at providing target moving as I had forgotten that. You might try for the mounted archery penalty, however this requires certain scripts to be enabled. As for invisibility, I think the phrase "see through his own invisibility" captures the bug better, as for normal invisibility it is if the attacker has trueseeing or see invisibility (but not ultravision), but for darkness invisibility it is trueseeing or ultravision (but not see invisibility), as if Bioware had gotten the conditions right but accidentally performed the check on the attacker rather than the target. WhiZard 01:24, April 7, 2010 (UTC) ::* Oh right, horses. And I suspect you're right about the cause of the invisibility bug (I just forgot that there are different types of invisibility). --The Krit 16:58, April 8, 2010 (UTC) :::* Recalled one more. Blindness gives +2 bonus to attackers (in addition to the target having the unable to see penalty). WhiZard 22:53, April 8, 2010 (UTC) Formula element missing? Shouldn't the formula for AB calculation "base attack bonus + ability modifier + weapon bonus + spells + feats + situational" include size modifier? (I believe I missed this element in all the recent dragon articles I posted so feel it is important to remind other dummies like me that it must be factored in. Drats!) --Iconclast 16:40, May 27, 2012 (UTC) * Take a look at the first thing in the list of situational modifiers that apply to both melee and ranged combat (the "always" list; probably should rename that to "both"). --The Krit 17:47, May 27, 2012 (UTC) :* I saw that TK, but do not consider size as situational since it always applies to any given blueprint or PC just like weapon bonus or feats. All creatures have a size modifier... always. The way it is presented in this article makes it appear to apply specifically to mounted combat... at least, that is why I have commented here (I skipped over its universal applicability). Obviously, should something occur in game to modify the size, the calculation would need to redone just as it would if something affected abilities and those are not situational. The size modifier should appear in the basic formula and not as an a contingent extrapolation (well, it will appear in mine here forward anyway ;) ) and probably even listed before ability modifier since race will establish it during PC creation before abilities are addressed. --Iconclast 18:39, May 27, 2012 (UTC) ::* Polymorph is the current justification for size being situational. Combined with the current length of the formula (already a rather full line), as I recall. Maybe a renaming of "situational"? A longer description might be "modifiers that have no in-game documentation, so you better read this article to find out how much they affect the attack bonus". (OK, there is small stature, which mentions the modifier for small creatures, but that is not seen by players polymorphing a medium-sized PC to a small form.) --The Krit 20:16, May 27, 2012 (UTC) :::* I think we are trying to compare apples to oranges here. :::: Size is not situational whether from polymorph or another cause. Size is related to race. A "statistics owner", whether it be PC or NPC, can only assume the form of one race at a time and whichever race that has been assumed dictates the associated size modifier, one that is fixed for that race. Once the size modifier changes... guess what? A new race has just replaced the previous one. TBH, this whole discussion has become needlessly semantic IMO. Size is not situational, it is race-dependent and nothing more. All polymorph effect does, size-wise, is swap races, temporarily. I'm not discussing the other characteristics which are influenced during race changes... in this case, just size as it applies to calculating default AB. :::: Bottom line is: Do you expect to see the size modifier expressed in the AB calculation of the (non-situational) creature articles or not? In some cases, I see them factored in while in others, ignored, perhaps in error like my recent submissions. Let's decide on a standard expression, please. I do not care how long a formula appears on a wiki page. I suppose one could use abbreviations but it doesn't matter to me personally. I'm quite used to handling formulas several times longer than any shown throughout this website. That's what the scroll bar is for. ;) --Iconclast 22:46, May 27, 2012 (UTC) ::::* *shrug* D&D is a magical world. A standing character gets hit by Bigby's forceful hand... guess what? Prone modifiers suddenly apply. A running character gets hit by hold person... guess what? Moving modifiers no longer apply. A polymorphed character gets hit by dispel magic... guess what? Size modifiers have changed. All of these are things that can change in the middle of combat. In this respect, they should qualify as situational. Then again, many of the other modifiers can change during combat as well. In addition, some of the feat modifiers could certainly be considered situational (e.g. nature sense). You are making it quite clear that "situational" is far from an ideal name to use. So I'll ask again: the classification currently called "situational modifiers" is really for "modifiers that have no in-game documentation, so you better read this article to find out how much they affect the attack bonus"; what is a better name for this collection of modifiers? ::::: As for more factual matters: Size is not related to race. (For example: badgers, black bears, and brown bears are all of the animal race, yet they are tiny, medium, and large, respectively.) Size is determined by appearance. Yes, this discussion is becoming semantic, but that is to be expected because the crux of the issue is the name given to this group of modifiers. I do expect to see the size modifier included in the AB and AC listed in creature articles (not all of possible size modifiers though, just the one that applies to the creature's default situation, as the articles are non-situational). Among other things, including it removes the need for readers to be reminded that it must be factored in. This should be the case for the vast majority (hopefully all) of the creature articles I have reviewed or created, but I cannot speak to the ones I have not checked in detail. ::::: If you brought up this issue solely because you forgot the size modifier in the dragon articles, don't worry about it. It's really not a big deal, and no one is expected to get everything correct all the time. Articles can always be corrected later. --The Krit 23:53, May 27, 2012 (UTC) ::::* Or maybe BAB, ability modifiers, weapon bonus, spells, and feats could be called "the modifiers that 'everyone' remembers", so what is currently called "situational" should be described as "the modifiers that are commonly forgotten and/or not widely known"? Not a scientifically precise description, but fairly accurate. --The Krit 00:17, May 28, 2012 (UTC) :::::* I feel situational conveys the concept fine. It's just that size is not just situational, it is baseline. Just as abilities can change in-game via buffing or external effects (like polymorph), size is subject to the same influences. Abilities are also baseline. We need a baseline set of factors so that when these situational events occur, we can produce the modified AB, if applicable. It's not a matter of what is easily remembered or not, it is related to what is innate (part of the creature's static essence) vs. what can be altered by outside influences. If size is not considered part of the baseline, then neither should abilities. The hard-to-remember factors are those which only take effect during active game play and can be constantly changing. But even if none of those circumstances happen to the PC or NPC, there still exists a baseline that is associated with that creature. IMO, the baseline list, the innate list... should be: BAB + ability mod + size mod + wpn bonus + feats + situational. An non-engaged creature would use 0 (zero) for the situationals. I consider spells as completely situational, a subset, just like traps, some of which can modify abilities or levels. Polymorph would be another of these situational influences on AB, but the changes from pre-morphed status are clearly defined by the script or 2da where abilities and size are both static values of a replacement form/appearance/race. Anyway, that is how I would be calculating AB. --Iconclast 01:49, May 28, 2012 (UTC) ::::::* Apparently, "situational" does not convey the subject fine, as you still are trying to make it mean something other than what it was intended to mean. (The size modifier fits perfectly with the intended subject. What you are describing is a different subject.) --The Krit 14:18, June 20, 2012 (UTC) Edit/clarification: That's not to say the classifications cannot be changed, just that what the current classification means to you is not what the current classification was meant to mean. --The Krit 16:01, June 20, 2012 (UTC) * Regarding the dragon articles: When I started creating the creature articles, I used dm_enablecombatdebugging to get the AB and AC, and that ensured that the size modifier was included. Once I switched to doing the calculations in my head, I made sure to calculate AB after AC, since the Toolset shows the size modifier in the AC display, and that would remind me to factor the size modifier into AB. (You can see the order I fill in the fields by looking at the source of the creature articles I've created. I might have changed the order of a few things over time, but it basically follows the order of tabs in the creature properties in the Toolset.) --The Krit 23:53, May 27, 2012 (UTC) :* That's exactly how I do it, too, except I bypassed the size modifier. Why? Who knows? I always figure it into my PCs but then again, they are not blueprint. :) I am using the articles to cross-check my own transcriptions. I tend to get foggy spending many hours dealing with the toolset so the article templates are easier "read" with all the tabs compiled in one screen. Me likes. --Iconclast 01:49, May 28, 2012 (UTC) * I've renamed "situational" to "miscellaneous", since the inaccuracy of "situational" probably outweighs the weakness of "miscellaneous". Perhaps a summary of these factors (better than the one I gave earlier) could be "factors that can be ignored when leveling a character"? Then again "factors that can be ignored when building a character" is almost the same, but would not include the size modifier. Hmm.... I'll get back to this later. --The Krit 15:07, June 20, 2012 (UTC) -20AB cap? In NWN2 there is a -20AB cap (for penalties) that is separate from the +20AB cap. So if you have +25 from effects, and -5 from penalties, that would be an effective +15 AB, and not +20. I don't see it mentioned here, so I wonder, does the same apply in NWN1? --GFallen (talk) 15:21, December 23, 2012 (UTC) Listing of AB Increase Factors? I just added tenser's transformation to the list of spell that directly add a temporary AB increase that also counts towards the +20 cap. From a player-oriented perspective, I find the list itself an extremely helpful "one-stop shopping" resource to aid in quickly evaluating the applicable methods of elevating AB. I am a bit conflicted whether the BAB increase provided to some other polymorph forms via feats like the shifter wildshapes, for instance, should be mentioned or listed. The +AB effect could be considered indirect since it doesn't specifically increment AB but the end result would increase the resultant AB of the PC. As for the feat effects counting towards the AB cap or not.... I am unsure, but suspect that it does NOT count (for example, a character holding a +20 weapon prior to merging to epic minotaur should gain the entire +9 to their AB tally plus the weapon enhancement). In any case, polymorph item merging makes the +AB/AB cap evaluation vague to at least myself and other player types I come into contact with. If there are other articles that have sufficiently addressed this issue, I can't locate them so recommend that some statement be added that would at least link them into this article within the section devoted to the sources of AB increase. As usual, TIA for any assistance with this topic. --Iconclast (talk) 12:48, November 18, 2013 (UTC) * The epic minotaur's +9 (to base attack) is +6 from a 22 strength and +3 from an item property. (Shouldn't there also be a -1 size modifier? Or is there another +1 I'm missing?) This will not increase the PC's AB if the PC already has a 22 strength and a +3 weapon. --The Krit (talk) 01:24, November 19, 2013 (UTC) ** I don't think the minotaur has any other +1 to AB to compensate for the missing -1 from size. Seems like a few of the polymorphed forms aren't accounting for the size modifier. I just noticed the same thing for kobold commando. - MrZork (talk) 08:43, November 21, 2013 (UTC)